Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RetiredNow who wrote (8297)	5/20/2009 8:18:02 AM
From: steve harris	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 86356

It's not extreme having to go to Geitner to get a car loan to buy an ObamaWagon and use your Dodd credit card to put govt moonshine in it, and park it at your Barney Frank free house at night? You're advocating these same stooges nationalizing the greatest health care system in the world?

To: RetiredNow who wrote (8297)	5/28/2009 2:07:37 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 86356

I might be fundamentally at odds with you on this one as well, but there is some ambiguity about "free market" and esp. "regulated free markets", with the boundaries between the two being somewhat arbitrary. A few take "free market" to mean "totally unregulated market". A larger number would accept a system that minimal regulation, esp. regulation focused on safety and avoiding fraud and issues like that, rather than trying to manipulate the market or determine what products or services are used or what price they sell at, to fall under the term free markets. Others would take what we have in the US, or even in much of Europe and still call it "free markets" or at least "mostly free markets". If your arguing against markets without any regulation or government action at all, when you argue for "regulated free markets" over "free markets" or "laissez faire", your pretty much attacking a straw man. Its not that anarcho-capitalists don't exist, but they are very thin on the ground and I'm not sure any of them are posting here. we don't have much to discuss, because we will always be fundamentally at odds. The latter doesn't necessarily imply the former.